Which is more irrational?

The belief that there is someone smarter than us in the universe we could consider God...

or The belief that humans and possibly extra terrestrials evolved naturally out of unconscious material.

For the sake of argument... or "conversation" as I like to say, I will only pose the opposition if there is one. I am not agnostic... I just like other peoples thoughts some times. They make my own seem Jolly... Have fun good luck!

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Let us assume universe began at the Big Bang.
Evidence suggests that immediately after the Big Bang there was only unconscious material (although you would need to define what you mean by conscious in this regard).
Evidence suggests that humans currently exist.
Rationally one can conclude that one led to the other.
That humans evolved naturally from unconscious matter.

Question is what caused the Big Bang.
We don't know.
One could postulate an "initial cause".
But why would this be "God"?
How is it rational to conclude that it is?
I haven't come across an argument for it that I consider rational.

And if the Big Bang is merely the start of another cycle in an eternal mechanism...
Then no need for an initial cause.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Big bang is just male ejaculation. So science is bull too, based on spiritual beliefs.

Ants do not know we exist and we know they do. So a group of entities could in theory be here on earth without us knowing, but could maybe block our minds to that concept. Why not, if ants exist and do not know us.

Man kind will only ever work out whats in there our mind, and thats all.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

It's not a matter of theory or possibility.
But question of which is more rational.
Clearly if impossible then not rational to believe it.
But out of two possibilities one can be more rational than the other.
Just ask Occam.

I acknowledge the possibility of more intelligent beings existing, but even they must have come about through a process of evolution. Its the only known path to intelligence. Our present lack of knowledge is not an excuse to believe that anything is possible.

Baldeee pretty much took care of this one. I think most atheists have the opinion of "We don't know what began the universe (if there was a beginning) but there's no rational reason to suggest it was anything supernatural." Which is more rational: to use science to continuously work towards a solution based on observations and logic, or to jump to the conclusion of magic when faced with the unknown? The only rational defense I've ever heard of for theism is that there can be no logic in faith...I can accept that as an appropriate justification on the basis of consistency, even though I could never personally base my values on anything that cannot pass thorough analysis.

It's not a matter of theory or possibility.
But question of which is more rational.
Clearly if impossible then not rational to believe it.
But out of two possibilities one can be more rational than the other.
Just ask Occam.

Baldeee pretty much took care of this one. I think most atheists have the opinion of "We don't know what began the universe (if there was a beginning) but there's no rational reason to suggest it was anything supernatural." Which is more rational: to use science to continuously work towards a solution based on observations and logic, or to jump to the conclusion of magic when faced with the unknown? The only rational defense I've ever heard of for theism is that there can be no logic in faith...I can accept that as an appropriate justification on the basis of consistency, even though I could never personally base my values on anything that cannot pass thorough analysis.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that one insists on bringing "science" (aka metonymic based empiricism) to a subject that by definition exists outside that discipline of knowledge.
IOW the very limitations of "science" prohibit it from even theoretically being able to investigate the subject.

So far from it being rational to suppose that there is no transcendental prime mover driving reality, its irrational to expect "science" to be capable of addressing that problem authoritatively from the onset.
:shrug:

1: The belief that humans and possibly extra terrestrials evolved naturally out of unconscious material
2: The belief that an all powerful being just popped into existence out of nothing?

Click to expand...

yeah I agree it is absurd to try and establish an omnimax god as existing in a state of contingency with the phenomenal world ... however if you want to start talking about the phenomenal world existing in a state of contingency with an omnimax god ...

I would say the belief that intelligent beings created us is more irrational, especially in light of all the evidence for evolution. This is assuming it is irrational to believe something that contradicts all evidence to the contrary. A further problem with creationism: who created the creator(s)? So creationism doesn't really solve anything. It posits a greater mystery to solve a lesser mystery. And that's irrational too.

I would say the belief that intelligent beings created us is more irrational, especially in light of all the evidence for evolution. This is assuming it is irrational to believe something that contradicts all evidence to the contrary. A further problem with creationism: who created the creator(s)? So creationism doesn't really solve anything. It posits a greater mystery to solve a lesser mystery. And that's irrational too.

Click to expand...

the only way that this statement about evolution necessarily driving an intelligent creator from the field can be rational is if there is evidence for abiogenesis.
Since it is clearly a theoretical subject (at best), its plainly obvious you are still being irrational
:shrug:

the only way that this statement about evolution necessarily driving an intelligent creator from the field can be rational is if there is evidence for abiogenesis.
Since it is clearly a theoretical subject (at best), its plainly obvious you are still being irrational
:shrug:

Click to expand...

There are several plausible naturalistic explanations for abiogenesis, which makes the hypothesis much more rational than magic.

the only way that this statement about evolution necessarily driving an intelligent creator from the field can be rational is if there is evidence for abiogenesis.
Since it is clearly a theoretical subject (at best), its plainly obvious you are still being irrational
:shrug:

Click to expand...

Ok..so we have numerous scientific explanations for abiogenesis, as well as first hand evidence of it occurring at this very moment in our own bodies by the mere laws of chemistry. OR..we have your explanation of abiogenesis by magical power--aka, man being made from dust and artifically suscitated by divine breath. Let's compare them. How do you propose God formed man from unconscious matter? What is your evidence for this claim besides just that the Bible told you so? Here's science's explanations:

Yes, if you don't know something, don't believe it. It's still fine to imagine things, but those things aren't real, nor is it rational to believe things that only exist in your imagination.

Click to expand...

Our imaginations are just uncollected connections to reality... If we did not have reality we would not be able to connect our feelings to the higher thoughts provided by the imagination. The imagination as a whole is still very real and connected it just does not stand the test of time. Time means nothing to imagination, therefore connecting our imagination with another's is impossible not only because of its disconnect but because it is simultaneously disconnected. This does not make it "unreal", just with an ever-reaching disguise into the future connect of humanity. Without imagination thought as real consciousness is just a fraud of cause and effect. I would like to believe more.